From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Updegraff Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:52:36 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] multicast tftp: RFC2090 In-Reply-To: <464E524C.7040706@gmail.com> References: <1177432072.3904.129.camel@saruman.qstreams.net> <2acbd3e40705010916v4d9ae9e3pa6565b8078f3059e@mail.gmail.com> <46376D9D.9050104@cray.com> <2acbd3e40705011200r373a062djd20ce7ac6b4339ed@mail.gmail.com> <464DDCE6.6060701@cray.com> <464E524C.7040706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <464E5864.7030203@cray.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Jerry IMHO.. its a no-brainer: it costs almost nothing, adds _very_ litte code, incurs no penatly for FTP servers that dont support it or that have no other concurrent downloaders... but has a _H_U_G_E_ impact where its usefull. I.e. to my view, RCF7090 should be _the_ tftp protocol. All upside, no downside that I see. Aside -- of course! -- from the bugs we have not yet found in that patch. -;) > David Updegraff wrote: >> Ok; here my mulicast TFTP patch. Have had the opportunity to test with >> both the RTL8139 and TSEC ethernet drivers, with up to a dozen clients >> concurrent. >> >> In a way I'm tempted to simply remove the #if CONFIG_RFC7090 clutter as >> it is benign if you happen to be talking to a non-multicast tftp server; >> and would make things rather more readable. But too timid... >> >> -dbu. > > Hi Dave, > > Interesting, not as much change needed as I would have guessed. > > Now I'm dying of curiosity... what is your impression of the usefulness > of RFC7090? It always struck me as a lab curiosity: in fairly > artificial cases where a bunch of CPU boards are powered up > simultaneously... > * a room full of machines with a master breaker > * a rack of CPUs > it would be a big win, but that is a fairly unusual setup in the areas I > hang out in. > > On the other hand, we have a customer that currently has up to 4 units > in a rack, and in the future possibly more units in a rack, that could > possibly benefit from RFC2090. > > Best regards, > gvb